IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL [DELHI BENCH: ‘C’ NEW DELHI]

BEFORE SHRIYOGESH KUMAR U.S., JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRINAVEEN CHANDRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. No. 2622/DEL/2019 (A.Y. 2014-15)

ITO, M/s GHP Buildcon Pvt. Ltd., Ward-10(4), Vs. 519, 5^th Floor, D Mall, New Delhi. PaschimVihar, New Delhi.

PAN No.AADCG1584F (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) Department by: Shri Om Prakash, Sr. DR Assessee by : Ms. Rano Jain, Adv. &

Ms. Mansi Jain, CA &

Shri SakshiRustagi, Adv.

Date of Hearing 01.04.2025 Date of Pronouncement 25.04.2025 ORDER PER YOGESH KUMAR U.S., JM This appeal is filed by the Revenue against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-35, New Delhi dated

28.12.2018 for the Assessment Year 2014-15.

2. The Grounds of Appeal of the Revenue are as under:-

1. “Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld.CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs..9,11,81,859/- made by the AO on account of disallowance of creditors which remained unverified even during the remand proceedings as the notices issued to such creditors returned un-served.

2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld.CIT(A) has erred in ignoring the fact mentioned in the remand report that except seven creditors and rest of the creditors and rest of the creditors either did not appear or their letter have returned back with the remarks “No such office”, No such person”, left without address?

3. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld.CIT(A) has erred in ignoring the fact that the identity and creditworthiness of most of the creditors could not be established and merely filing of confirmation of PAN before Ld.CIT(A) and return to the amount in subsequent years is not sufficient to discharge onus casted upon the assessee.

4. The appellant craves leave to add, amend, modify, vary, omit or substitute any of the aforesaid grounds of appeal at any time before or at the time of hearing of the appeal.”

3. Brief facts of the case are that the Assessee filed return of income declaring total income of Rs.51,190/-. The case was selected for scrutiny under CASS. An assessment order came to be passed u/s 144(1) r.w.s. 145(3) of the Act by making addition of Rs.11,00,81,859/- u/s 68 of the Act, Rs.22,37,314/- made by treating the total accumulated profit of lender company, loan amount as deemed dividend in the hands of the Assessee and Rs.1,22,248/- has been disallowed u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Act, thereby computed the income of the Assessee at Rs.11,24,92,610/-.

4. Aggrieved by the assessment order dated 26/12/2016, the Assessee preferred an appeal before the CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) vide order dated 28/12/2018, deleted the addition of Rs.9,11,81,859/- made u/s 68 of the Act. The Ld. CIT(A), however, dismissed the other grounds of the Assessee by sustaining the additions.Aggrieved by the deletion of addition of Rs.9,11,81,859/- u/s 68 of the Act, the Department of Revenue preferred the present appeal on the grounds mentioned above.

5. The Ld. DR vehemently submitted that the Assessee never produced any document before the Assessing Officer. Therefore, the Assessing Officer has rightly passed the order u/s 144(1) of the Act. Further submitted that, all the creditors have not been verified either before the A.O. during the assessment proceedings or during the Remand proceedings. The notices issued to the creditors during the Remand proceedings have been returned un-served with the remark “no such office, no such person, left without address”. However, the Ld.CIT(A) erroneously gone ahead in deleting the addition made by the AO.The Ld. DR further submitted that the identity and creditworthiness of most of the creditors could not be established based on the documents produced by the Assessee during the first appellate proceedings or before the A.O. in Remand Proceedings and the Assessee has not discharged the onus cast upon him. Therefore, the Ld. DR submitted that the order of the CIT(